The next mayor - Page 4

Can the left win, or will egos and infighting turn this into a huge missed opportunity?

Players: Supes David Campos, Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, John Avalos, and David Chiu and former Sup. Aaron Peskin

Then there are the outsiders. City Attorney Dennis Herrera has already announced he plans to run in the fall. If the board's looking for a respected candidate who can appeal to moderates as well as progressives, his name will come up. So will state Sen. Mark Leno, who has the political gravitas and experience and would be formidable in a re-election campaign in November. Leno doesn't always side with the left on local races; he supported Supervisor-elect Scott Wiener, and losing D6 candidate Theresa Sparks. But he has always sought to remain on good terms with progressives.

All that assumes that the current board will make the choice — and even that is a matter of strategic and political dispute. If the lame duck supervisors choose a mayor — particularly a strong progressive — you can count on the San Francisco Chronicle, Newsom, and the downtown establishment to call it a "power grab" and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the winner.

"But choosing a mayor is the legal responsibility of this board and they ought to do their jobs," Peskin said.

The exact makeup of the next board was still unclear at press time. Jane Kim is the likely winner in D6 and has always been a progressive on the School Board. She's also close to Chiu, who strongly supported her. If Malia Cohen or Lynette Sweet wins D10, it's unlikely either of them will vote for a progressive mayor.

Newsom also might try to screw things up with a last-minute power play. He could, for example, simply refuse to take the oath of office as lieutenant governor until after the new board is seated.

Chiu's allies say it makes sense for the progressives to choose a mayor who's not identified so closely with the left wing of the board, who can appeal to the more moderate voters. That's a powerful argument, and Herrera and Leno can also make the case. The progressive agenda — and the city — would be far better off with a more moderate mayor who is willing to work with the board than it has been with the arrogant, recalcitrant, and distant Newsom. And if the progressives got 75 percent of what they wanted from the mayor (as opposed to about 10 percent under Newsom), that would be cause to celebrate.

But to accept that as a political approach requires a gigantic assumption. It requires San Franciscans to give up on the idea that this is still, at heart, a progressive city, that the majority of the people who live here still believe in economic and social justice. It means giving up the dream that San Francisco can be a very different place, a city that's not afraid to defy national trends and conventional wisdom, a place where socioeconomic diversity is a primary goal and the residents are more important than the big companies that try to make money off them. It means accepting that even here, in San Francisco, politics have to be driven by an ever-more conservative "center."

It may be that a progressive can't line up six votes, that a more moderate candidate winds up in the Mayor's Office. But a lot of us aren't ready yet to give up hope.

Additional reporting by Noah Arroyo.


All those testosterone faces at the top of this article. Whatever happened to women in our local progressive sect?

Or is it still taboo to raise this question at The Guardian?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

No blacks or irish need apply!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

The Progressives on this site and others have repeatedly demonstrated their intense antipathy towards women. Just read through the comments concerning sit-lie. Especially someone named Barbara Chelsai (sp?). Every time an example of violence towards women is brought to their attention, they have responded by either ridiculing the victim or calling the poster who mentioned the incident a liar. It's sickening

Posted by Guest on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

I find it interesting that your editorial mentions many economic groups, but completely leaves out the MIDDLE CLASS. Is this intentional or just a Freudian slip since Liberal - you don't get to own Progressive anymore - policies ran them out of the City?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

Don't the middle class already scum around by passing sit-lie laws and rejecting bonds to prevent buildings from collapsing because it would, you know, get rid of POOR PEOPLE?

Besides, troll (you don't deserve the Guest name), all you guys ever do is kvetch about everything. Lord ever help this nation if things really went to hell, because all you'd do is fall on your sword and complain that you can't get up.

Posted by ??? on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

the progressive movement."

That statement represents everything wrong with "the progressive movement" and its eerie parallels with the conservative movement - that it's all about "the movement" and not about the city or people it claims to represent. That the ends justify the means and if you're not with us then you're against us.

I wonder if Campos truly realizes the bankruptcy of what he said?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

I hope it is Aaron Peskin, think he could do a great job.

Posted by Edward on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

Is Scissorhands your second name?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 10:37 pm

@edward - Oh, so you're the one still hasn't had enough of Peskin's petty, divisive immaturity. Have you had a chance to look at the results of last Tuesday's election?

Posted by Homer on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 9:43 am

I have looked at the results.

I tend to trust people who have a passion for their district.

Also, he's made some unpopular decisions that I believe were right.

I also feel that his background, and certainly personal interests, from hiking the John Muir trails to the swim club, mean he'll balance development with environment, which is a very fine line.

That's my take.

Posted by Edward on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

Like Jane Kim?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

This article clearly shows the sad state to which SF progressivism has come. It's now a sect, not a movement.

It has been co-opted by politicians, mostly men. They use it as a means to manipulate the system for their own career advantages.

David Campos once eloquently expressed the sectarian spirit. He boasted of how the Six Guys Club at the supes had shut out Sophie Maxwell when she ran for board prez. They united to save the position, he boasted, "for one of our own."

Sects, even male-dominated ones, have roles to play in life and politics. But they cannot claim to be any kind of vanguard on behalf of progress.

That role requires wider visions and greater diversity of personnel.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

"So if all goes according to the rules (and Newsom doesn't try to play some legal game and delay his swearing-in), David Chiu will become acting mayor on Jan.3. He'll also retain his job as board president."


Again harken back to Daly's sleazy antics as "mayor for a day" and consider that Redmond and the rest of the sleazy gang was OK with that.

Legal games are only good when progressives get over.

The only thing important to the progressive gang is getting over, it has absolutely nothing to do with any real sense of right and wrong. No matter how often they proclaim their own righteousness, which is every day, the key to being a progressive is getting their way, right and wrong is something to screaming about concerning other people.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 09, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

A "movement" bankrupt in every sense of the word...

Posted by C.J. FLowers on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 12:03 am

seems it always has to be a moderate or far right person. the last time an authentic progressive held office anywhere was when? why not call for an authentic progressive? we've only had mods. newsom is a mod. been there, done that.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 12:05 am

None of the Six Schemers at the supes ran for election in this past election. All are contemptuous of the common good. All to impose a narrow ideological agenda on the city. Their tunnel-vision mentality is summed by David Campos' infamous remark about "one of our own."

But what the city needs in an Interim Mayor is someone who is an even-handed consensus-builder and who has recently faced the voters.

There is such a person - Scott Wiener.

He got the highest number of votes of anyone who ran for supe in the recent election - 13,321 before ranked-choice voting kicked in, and 16,433 after.

Moreover, he has an excellent record in public life as an even-handed consensus builder and is thoroughly knowledgeable about the workings of city government.

He is far more qualified to serve as Interim Mayor than any of the tunnel-vision ideologues now being pushed by the six schemers at the supes.

Let's put SF on an even keel for 20011 -

Support Scott Wiener for Interim Mayor.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 9:44 am

Great idea!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 10:12 am

"Even handed consensus builder."

Oh, Arthur... I guess even an old curmudgeon like you can have a sense of humor!

Thanks for giving me a chuckle this morning.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 10:30 am

He is in a district where more people would be likely to vote, as opposed to a district like 6, which has a large Tenderloin population.

Posted by Guest Susan on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

>Or as Sup. Campos put it: "We have to come together here and do what's right for the progressive movement."

There's your problem right there. Campos is an elected official, he is supposed to do what's right for the City of San Francisco.

Oh, and Mr. Redmond, did ANY of the SFBG's endorsements for BOS win???

Posted by Homer on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 9:55 am

The future belongs to the organ harvesters. Don't fight it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 10:13 am

The important thing in all this is to get public input in the process.

As things now stand, a clique of six scheming politicians are planning to impose a tunnel-vision ideologue on the city as mayor, with virtually no public input, even from other supes. And in the name of progressive politics!

Scott Wiener is as qualified to be mayor as is any of the schemers. So is the police chief. So is the fire chief. So are many others.

You may have other choices of your own. Fine. But in any case, make your voice heard. Insist that the process be open and accessible to all.

It's called democracy.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 10:54 am

In the meantime, per the city charter, the old board gets to choose the next mayor. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have voted for Boy Wonder. I didn't.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

I *pray* that the progressive board of supervisors appoints a progressive mayor. Only then will the citizens of San Francisco realize how completely screwed up the progressives are, and will see first hand how much further they sink our city into financial chaos.

The swing back to the political center will be harsh, fast and will hopefully last a LONG time.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 11:53 am

What, exactly, is "economic justice"? Can you elaborate on that? It reads like "economic justice" is taking money from those who work hard and achieve in order to give it to those who do nothing and complain.
Nothing is more amusing than villainizing "the rich". We are all afforded equal opportunity to work hard and be successful. Yet, to some, the moment your hard work pays off, you become the enemy. It is an absolutely moronic class warfare derived from an absolutely ignorant thought process.
Ironically, the false idols of this progressive movement are the most notorious. It's as if some people in the city are literally so stupid they don't understand that their heros - Pelosi, Daly, Campos, et al - live insanely wealthy lifestyles while pushing their "progressive" agena upon "the wealthy" as they leverage their position to exempt themselves from the effects of their socialist plans.

Posted by Pinestock on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

"We are all afforded equal opportunity to work hard and be successful."

How did I fail to notice that America has achieved free health care for all from birth to twenty five, and excellent and free public education from pre-K through graduate schools? Equal opportunity was finally realized and nobody told me?!

Oh, wait, you're just blind. Equal opportunity absolutely does not describe the wildly divergent conditions we all grow up in. When one person is getting a free trip to law school from daddy, and another is going to one of the most dangerous excuses for a school in the developed world, then maybe we aren't being afforded equal opportunity after all.

That being established, what was your argument again?

Posted by hermann on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

Rumor has it that the Six Guys Club are lining up behind Starchild as their choice for mayor. Without any compromise or hesitancy, he boldly takes their disdain for practicality and popularity to its logical conclusion, utterly undaunted by common sense.

Where else can you find their underlying attitudes expressed with such purity?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

if this msg. forum had been around 30 yrs ago i can't see the comments then being what they are today. seems like every website i go on the rightwing monopolize it., we are really a sick country. sad.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

Who decided on all of these premises? When did anyone in SF get to vote on your world view as city policy? You need to get out more and deal with the actual citizens of the city.

I would love to spend the day in the lunchroom at the Guardian watching the interactions.

"But to accept that as a political approach requires a gigantic assumption. It requires San Franciscans to give up on the idea that this is still, at heart, a progressive city, that the majority of the people who live here still believe in economic and social justice. It means giving up the dream that San Francisco can be a very different place, a city that's not afraid to defy national trends and conventional wisdom, a place where socioeconomic diversity is a primary goal and the residents are more important than the big companies that try to make money off them. It means accepting that even here, in San Francisco, politics have to be driven by an ever-more conservative "center.""

Posted by matlock on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

So the likely possibilities include:

Dufty et al vote for Campos, who gets to be the "sacrificial lamb" one-year progressive mayor


Dufty et al vote for Chiu, who is less progressive but could try to run for re-election


six progs vote for Peskin, who gets to be the "sacrificial lamb" highly unpopular one-year mayor


six progs try to vote for Ammiano, who doesn't want a one-year term with lots of unpopular decisions on the plate


some other coalition votes for Herrera, Leno, or someone else


the current board fails to do anything at all, in which case the new board gets to decide.

two observations:

one, failing to reach a decision and punting to the new board would be the greatest possible indictment of the movement that got these progs elected. you have power now, and if you can't agree on anything when it counts the most and therefore you fail to use that power -- that's just embarrassing. Even giving the seat to Herrera or Leno or Dufty in exchange for something is better than just walking away and letting the new guys decide.

two, the problem is not that "this isn't a progressive city anymore", exactly. the problem is that the only elected progressives are on the board, and due to procedural arcana, no one on the board can vote for themselves. therefore you need Bevan's vote, or you have to vote for an unpopular ex-Supe. The only exception to this is Ammanio, who is a highly popular ex-Supe who went on to be elected city-wide (sorta), but he likes his current job a lot and doesn't want a one-year term at a time of budgetary catastrophe. who can blame him.

there's also Matt Gonzales, but he's flamed out in too many ways to be viable anymore.

so the real problem is that progressives are not getting elected to the citywide, non-mayor positions, and more specifically, are not getting elected from the Board to the other citywide non-mayor positions. which is partly a function of personality -- Ammiano went on to elective greatness, but Daly won't, Peskin probably won't, and Gonzales almost did but then completely blew it since then. The Board ought to be a springboard to higher office -- Ma used it, Leno used it, Ammiano used it, Gonzales nearly used it, hell Newsom himself used it. But when you put people on the Board who will never ever ever be viable citywide (Daly, Peskin), as opposed to people who are substantively similar but can be viable (Ammiano), then you're going to find yourself with no Farm Team when big positions open up.

Just as a thinker, what would have happened if Pelosi had decided to retire, like Hastert and Gingrich did? Who would we have run? Would Ammiano, presumably our best candidate, have deferred to Leno? Would Mirkarimi have run against Leno? I would be fine with Rep Leno, but given this movement's beliefs about itself and about San Francisco (and especially about the part of it within CA-08), it's not encouraging that there's so few credible names to go to. We can't run Ammiano for Assembly, Mayor, and Congress.

Fortunately the new crop looks better than the old one. Campos, Avalos, Chiu, Mar, and Kim all act like people who could be promoted to higher office someday. But if we have no credible candidates now, it's because the outgoing prog supervisors have not been the kind of people you could ask the electorate to promote.

And if that's the case, the SFBG bears some responsibility. If our farm team on the Board is flaming out before it can reach higher office, then you guys need to be scrutinizing the candidates more closely and making sure they have the temperament, intellect, and style that will enable them to be elected beyond the Board in the future. Otherwise we're wasting our only launchpads on duds.

(And yes, of course, these seats aren't about launching careers they're about serving the district etc. Of course. But a progressive district is better served in the long run if the other citywide seats are held by progressives too, and that requires looking for supe candidates who can be viable citywide.)

Posted by hermann on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

"The important thing now is to get the cauldron warmed up and bubbling with possible candidates for Interim Mayor. Otherwise, the scheming Six Guys Club will decide this matter by default, while everybody else is sitting on their thumbs.

Another possibility is Chief George Gascon. He has conducted himself well as chief, bringing new administrative tools to the SFPD. Also, he's willing to stand up to the political bullies in the name of public safety. Finally, he scored with the electorate by pushing for the civil sidewalks law.

Let's get moving, folks!"
Arthur Evans

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

"No Coup!

In the name of progressive politics, six scheming politicians are planning to impose by fiat a mayor of their own liking on the city.

If they were really progressive, the process would be open and fair. The public would be invited to suggest names. These would be honestly considered and discussed in a public venue.

But the democratic process is not going to happen. Although there are plenty of people as qualified to be mayor as the scheming six - for example, Scott Wiener, the police chief, the fire chief, etc. - none will get the slightest consideration. And neither will your own choices and concerns.

Unless there is a quick and widespread public reaction, the six schemers will prevail.

Let's stand up now for democracy in SF. Insist that the process be open, fair, and deliberative, not hasty, rigged, and predetermined."
Arthur Evans

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

Thank you, hermann, for your thoughtful and informed post above.

You're right that SF progressive politicians have trouble getting elected to city-wide office. The reason is that most of them reflect the more recent state of SF progressivism as a narrow, doctrinaire sect. They do not reflect the former state of SF progressivism as a welcoming popular movement.

The doctrinaire progressives of today can still do well in districts where they can mobilize enough supporters to grab the electoral donut. But on a city-wide scale, they need to win a certain amount of undecided middle voters for success.

And that's their downfall. The doctrinaire progressivism that is now in vogue in SF demonizes anyone who does not accept all its dogmas. Not a smart way to build a winning, city-wide coalition!

Doctrinaire progressivism is self-isolating and overly concerned with doctrinal purity. Take that attitude far enough in politics, and you end up with North Korea.

The older model of SF progressivism was better. It was intelligent progressivism, not doctrinaire progressivism.

Intelligence will not return to SF progressivism as long as anti-intellectual, anti-cultural attitudes are in vogue among SF progressive politicians and their core supporters.

So far, they show few signs of abandoning their self-defeating narrowness. Hence they will continue to get Darwin Awards in city-wide races.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

Arthur, I don't think you really care if the faces in the picture are male or female or white or Asian or Latino; you disagree with me on policy issues. You supported sit-lie, and I opposed it. So let's stop with the red herrings and talk issues.

The progressives aren't doctrinaire and often disagree on things. But I think we all support economic justice, which means a recognition that THE central issue in America right now is the vast disparity in wealth in our society, the fact that the richest 5,000 families have more than the bottom 160 MILLION combined. And it's a recognition that government policies created this problem, and that a n appropriate role of government at every level -- including the local level -- is to seek more economic equality, through taxes and social programs.

Scott Wiener is a perfectly nice man who is always polite and responsive to me, and I respect him for that. But he doesn't agree that the city should raise taxes on the rich (there are $16 billionaires in this city) and doesn't support further controls on evictions and condo conversions that are devastating the middle class.

So it' wasn't personal when we supported Scott's opponent. It's because we disagree on issues.

And please pardon the occasional typo these days; I'm typing with a broken hand.

Posted by tim on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

when the city voted to make your world view official policy of the city?

You spend an amazing amount of energy complaining about others using the government to force their values onto you, then turning around and doing it to us, then complaining that you are not doctrinaire?

Total cognative dissonance and disconnect from the real world.

Go out and meet the actual citizens of this city and country you live in. Stop claiming to speak for anyone but a small self selected group of cranks.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 10:08 am

Thank you, Tim, for taking the time to make your comments above. Very sorry to hear that you’ve broken your hand. Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

Some responses follow –

You say:

“I don't think you really care if the faces in the picture are male or female …”

Apparently you haven’t read my book, “Critique of Patriarchal Reason.” You may want to check it out some time. In fact, it would be nice if The Guardian reviewed it! How many other SF residents do you know who have written a monumental critique of Western philosophy, from antiquity to the present, from a feminist/gay perspective?

You say:

“The progressives aren't doctrinaire and often disagree on things. But I think we all support economic justice, which means a recognition that THE central issue in America right now is the vast disparity in wealth in our society…”

The exploitation of the planet by giant corporations is one of the great evils of modernity. I support the break-up of big corporations, the redistribution of wealth through taxation, and the protection of workers, consumers, and the environment.

However, there are other sources of human misery as well. For example, male violence, the harshness of nature, and human folly.

SF progressives in recent years have focused almost entirely on economic injustice and overlooked the rest. This attitude reflects a shallow and provincial outlook on the complexities of human life.

Also, SF progressives in recent years have acted like members of a religious sect. They’re hostile to independent inquiry, prone to see dissent as a mark of bad character, and lacking in social skills and spiritual depth.

You say:

“an appropriate role of government at every level -- including the local level -- is to seek more economic equality, through taxes and social programs.”

We agree on this point.

You say:

“So it' wasn't personal when we supported Scott's opponent [Raphael Mandelman]. It's because we disagree on issues.”

Rafael Mandelman is a good person and intelligent. But it was a terrible mistake on his part to turn his back on residents’ concerns about public safety.

Had he embraced those concerns, and come up with some practical solutions, he would have increased his chances of winning.

Neighborhood safety is a progressive issue. Why is it so hard for you to learn this lesson?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

sit-lie is not about neighborhood safety. it's about criminalizing homelessness. street patrols could have dealt with neigborhood safety. sit-lie supporters hate street patrols.

rafael might have won if he had campaigned as long as wiener and had the money wiener had. wiener started campaigning a long time ago. rafael didn't.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 9:28 pm

Do you honestly believe most of the people who voted for sit-lie want to criminalize homelessness? Forget for a moment what you think the end result of the law will be, and just tell me what you truly think the intentions of the voters were when they approved this legislation. Because if you really think the aim of the majority of voters (those that bothered to vote that is) in SF is to make it illegal to be poor, then you are very much mistaken. This was the act of community of people whose concerns have been ignored and who feel extremely unappreciated in a city they have given a whole lot to. They also feel tired of feeling unsafe. And don't give me the speech about how Prop L want make anyone any safer. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about why sit-lie passed. The Sups (and all you Progressives) shouldn't have been so dismissive and intractable over this issue. If you had better, more humane suggestions, then you should have proffered them long ago. Now it's too late. Learn to compromise.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 6:16 am

I do think that a desire to criminalize homelessness was the main motivator for sit-lie supporters. The rhetoric expressed on this blog throughout the campaign was all about getting undesirables off the streets, and how sick residents were of these street people, messages that you reinforce with this post. As you say, you are "tired of feeling unsafe," so you're giving the cops new authority to rid the streets of those you fear. Spin it any way you'd like, but Prop. L was passed by fearful people seeking simplistic solutions to problems (poverty, intolerance, bad parenting, drug abuse, lack of economic opportunity for young people) that are complex. It's you who needs to learn how to compromise and accept urban realities instead of trying to create a sterile fantasy world that you'll never achieve.

Posted by steven on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 11:18 am

and travelers isn't the responsibility of others.

The progressives seem to have this amazing view that the only people who have to uphold the social contract are those who in general already are doing it. If you want to live the traveler life then you don't really have to obey any forms of civilized behavior according to the progressives. The reason people voted for L is that they are sick of being tormented by self selected fuck ups.

Our self appointed progressive betters don't have the basic understanding of the people they presume to speak for, so they have to make up these fabulous arguments around what people are up to.

The people who have no interest in taking part in society are actually victims of something other than their life choices, so they get a pass from the progressives who have to make up odd justifications for their total lack of understanding of actual "urban realities."

A progressive complaining about the growing power of the state also is a laugher.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

"Spin it any way you'd like, but Prop. L was passed by fearful people seeking simplistic solutions to problems (poverty, intolerance, bad parenting, drug abuse, lack of economic opportunity for young people) that are complex"

Not trying to spin it. Your quote above is exactly what I was saying in my previous post. We agree on this. My point was that the citizens of SF have been asking their leaders to do something about this problem for a long, long time. We have been open to any number of approaches, willing to consider any number of ideas, but all we got from Progressives was a big F*ck U. Kind of like your response to my post above, actually. We have been willing to compromise all along. Many chances were given. But each opportunity for a rational constructive dialogue was met by derision and abuse from the Left. Now we've stopped asking. If you're angry that Prop L passed, you have no one but yourself to blame. Go ahead and keep up your intractable, obdurate ways. You will continue to lose at the ballot box. As for me, SF and California voted almost exactly the way I wished it would in almost every case. I'm not the one who needs to compromise in order for things to change in the way I wish them to. That said, I personally don't hold your arrogant elitist attitude against you and I would still be willing to find a solution that everyone can live with. In the meantime, good luck, you'll need it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

My aunt might be my uncle if she had balls, might.......

Posted by Guest on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 9:06 pm

Herrera would be an utterly unacceptable choice.

Remember when Herrera used a pathetic and unconstitutional legal technicality to throw into the trash bin, the 33,000 petition signatures District 10 voters collected, to put the question of Lennar's toxic gentrification in the Bayview Hunters Point Parcel A to a public vote?

That, all, was one of the most deep and unconscionable attacks on democracy in this nation's history.

Homey Don't Play That...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

Ballotts and ... He came closer than any other "genuine progressive" not a Democratic Party moderate. He is not even mentioned in the Chron (no surprise there) but the SF Bay Guardian our "progressive weekly" not mentioning him or his extraordinary campaign as a frame of reference. He sponsored Ranked Choice Voting, legislation so neighborhoods deciding if Chain Stores move in or protecting Mom and Pop small businesses, and the Highest minimum wage in the USA. I had never seen more people excited about the possibility of a victory during his campaign

Bowing out to let a progressive take District 5 is interpreted as "dropping out". Really?. No, I think it is more in the tradition of citizen politician not "career politician" but that is what our system favors; and now, disappointedly, even in the progressive community apparently not staying in office is considered a weakness.

So I predict we will end up with a moderate and we will call him or her a progressive so we can feel good about "our" new mayor.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

This is an astute comment.

If there were anyone who could manage to pull a Progressive rabbit out of the hat while passing it around to try and fix the budget mess, it would be Matt Gonzales. The fact that his name isn't the first one uttered by anyone who claims to be a pundit amazes me. Could it be that he's just not interested?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 12, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

In a post above, Guest, you say:

“sit-lie is not about neighborhood safety. it's about criminalizing homelessness.”

The opponents of civility made this argument repeatedly and loudly in the course of the debate on Prop L. The voters rejected it.

You also say:

“wiener started campaigning a long time ago. rafael didn't.”

False. I personally watched Chris Daly mentor and guide Rafael Mandelman’s ambitions for a long time.

Scott Wiener stood up for neighborhood safety. Rafael Mandelman had no counter-proposal.

Sorry, but that’s not good enough.

Eileen Hansen made the same mistake when she ran against Bevan Dufty. Some people never learn from their mistakes.

Knowledge begins where denial ends.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

Arthur, just because you and the other police state enablers got 133,000 (mostly westside and old) voters to criminalize the act of sitting or lying on a sidewalk doesn't mean Prop. L had anything to do with civility. In fact, 110,000 (mostly eastside and young) voters were really quite appalled at your intolerance and what you're trying to do to the city of St. Francis. The electorate doesn't always act wisely. In fact, more often than not, it's pretty easy to scare them into creating new crimes, increasing sentences, and expanding the police state, as we've seen over the last 40 years in this country. This campaign was simply the latest manifestation of that costly, damaging, and unsustainable trend, nothing more and nothing less, and the alarmist hyperbole that you used in this campaign is a disgraceful example of the right-wing scare tactics that drive it.
BTW, Arthur, you should stop pretending to understand or care about progressivism, either old or new. There's nothing progressive about you or your values.

Posted by steven on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 11:34 am

The progressive presumes to speak for "the people"(tm) then complains about how stupid the people are.

And again the progressive complains about encroaching government. Something that is utterly comical.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

The right claims the same thing Steven does when they lose elections. Look at their attempts to delegitimize Obama's election by claiming he's not a citizen and that those who elected him were somehow "duped."

The Guardian just represents the same sickness in American political life as the right in this country. Which is that those who disagree with their opinion are abjectly wrong and misled and only with the proper "reeducation" will they realize the error of their ways.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

Lucretia, you're absolutely dead on here. A very succinct and insightful observation, well done! I find it completely laughable that some people on here accuse you of being "Right Wing".

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 11:07 pm